Most Americans have never heard of the National Response Coordination Center, but they're lucky it exists on days of lethal winds and flood tides. The center is the war room of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where officials gather to decide where rescuers should go, where drinking water should be shipped, and how to assist hospitals that have to evacuate.

Connect With Us on TwitterFor Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of ''big government,'' which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further.

''Absolutely,'' he said. ''Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.'' Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was ''immoral'' for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt.

It's an absurd notion, but it's fully in line with decades of Republican resistance to federal emergency planning. FEMA, created by President Jimmy Carter, was elevated to cabinet rank in the Bill Clinton administration, but was then demoted by President George W. Bush, who neglected it, subsumed it into the Department of Homeland Security, and placed it in the control of political hacks. The disaster of Hurricane Katrina was just waiting to happen.

The agency was put back in working order by President Obama, but ideology still blinds Republicans to its value. Many don't like the idea of free aid for poor people, or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week includes living on the East Coast.

Over the last two years, Congressional Republicans have forced a 43 percent reduction in the primary FEMA grants that pay for disaster preparedness. Representatives Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House Republicans have repeatedly tried to refuse FEMA's budget requests when disasters are more expensive than predicted, or have demanded that other valuable programs be cut to pay for them. The Ryan budget, which Mr. Romney praised as ''an excellent piece of work,'' would result in severe cutbacks to the agency, as would the Republican-instigated sequester, which would cut disaster relief by 8.2 percent on top of earlier reductions.

Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romney's 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy's path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy.

(NaturalNews) It's not even nightfall and the looting after superstorm Sandy has already begun. One person in Philadelphia has already been arrested on suspicion of looting, and residents throughout Philly and NYC widely expect a wave of looting to kick off tonight as darkness falls.The New York State Police Department has formed an anti-looting patrol in anticipation of the looting, reports RT News. "People usually don't loot in the middle of a hurricane -- they wait until the end," said SeanMichael Pagano, an investigator with the New York State Police Department who has been placed on the anti-looting patrol.

And yes, absurdly, the mainstream media as well as a large number of netizens remain in a state of total denial about the looting that's about to take place. Publications such as The Atlantic Wire accuse Matt Drudge of "stirring up a panic" by reporting the news that Twitter users are actively recruiting "looting gangs" to exploit the post-storm situation! Yep, it's all Drudge's fault for actually reporting the news. How dare journalists tell the truth about looters! That story, by the way, was originally posted at InfoWars.com, an alternative news organization that's routinely attacked for reporting the truth.

How dare we report the truth! In fact, how dare weathermen report the approaching hurricane at all! That's too negative! All the weather reports should be positive! Tomorrow's forecast is sunny with no clouds, and that's the official forecast every day from here forward, okay?

Natural News has heard from a resident of Philadelphia about how locals are calling 911 and begging authorities to send National Guard troops to their neighborhoods! And why? To stop the wave of looting that's widely expected to take place tonight, of course.As we were told, exactly:

"Everyone here is aware that looting will be happening here either by tonight or sooner. Everyone is unarmed in my building to my knowledge, and my neighbors have actually been calling 911 just to ask when the National Guard is coming. Multiple buildings in this area have collapsed and we're already fully aware of looting... they use boats. There was also a man on a jet ski being chased by cops who used cars."

Rest assured that every active-duty cop in New York City is being told today to be on the alert for looters tonight. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's a simple fact of criminology: Criminals exploit weaknesses in policing to steal, loot, pillage and even rape.I have no idea why so many people choose to live in a state of delusional denial about all this. It's almost as if they psychologically can't deal with reality, so it's just easier for them to deny it. The "stop being negative" crowd is also the same crowd that refuses to prepare, refuses to evacuate, and thereby creates emergencies for everybody else who is forced to rescue them from imminent danger.

Make no mistake: Looting prime time begins tonight and will last for many days. With the power expected to be out for 7 - 10 days in many areas, as already announced by Con Ed, this provides a very large "window of opportunity" for looters to engage in low-risk looting. No power means no surveillance cameras, no street lights and almost certainly no police, since the police will be busy answering all the other urgent calls. As Mayor Bloomberg announced today, NYC 911 was receiving 10,000 calls every 30 minutes during the storm. That number continues to be elevated today, and police will have no time whatsoever to respond to property theft incidents.

For the record, denial is not a strategic defense against looters. They really don't care if you "think positive" or even if you live in a state of denial. They're coming to steal your jewelry, your cash, your electronics and anything else they can get their hands on. Whatever you happen to believe about the world is of no consequence to their plans."Thinking positive" does not make the lock on your front door any stronger. It does not prevent your windows from being smashed in. Thinking positive is a wonderful strategy for day-to-day living, but it cannot replace actual physical preparedness against determined criminals. For that, you need to take decisive action to prepare yourself and your property.

If thinking positive, all by itself, stopped criminals then we wouldn't even need local police. We could just roll out "Think Positive Squads" and let them stop all the crime by wishing it away.

Heck, we wouldn't need fire stations, either. Instead, cities could just hire crews of "positive thinkers" to sit around and wish for no fires. Problem solved!

In fact, why not just eliminate all ambulances and hospitals while we're at it, too, through "positive thinking?" Let's all just wish there were no medical emergencies. No heart attacks. No strokes or even construction accidents. Roll out the wishing brigade and all of society's problems disappear, right?

Of course not.

Wishing didn't stop superstorm Sandy. It didn't stop the power grid from failing. It didn't stop the 33 fatalities that have already been reported. It didn't stop the generator failures at hospitals. It didn't stop the water from rushing in and flooding the NYC subway system.

And it's not going to stop looters.

So to all those who live in a state of total denial about the looting we're going to see this week: Get a grip on reality. Stop kidding yourself about the criminals that exist in society and what they're capable of doing if presented with a window of opportunity.

Maybe the average citizen just doesn't get this because they've never spent time with local peace officers. I have, and I get it. Ask any cop -- ANY cop you can find -- about whether looting is likely to happen following this storm, and virtually 100% of them will tell you, "Of course!" They know the truth about human behavior. Cops see the worst of humanity day in and day out, and they know that grid-down situations routinely bring out the looters once darkness falls.

About the author: Mike Adams is an award-winning journalist and holistic nutritionist with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored more than 1,800 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, and he is well known as the creator of popular downloadable preparedness programs on financial collapse, emergency food storage, wilderness survival and home defense skills. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2010, Adams launched TV.NaturalNews.com, a natural health video site featuring videos on holistic health and green living. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the founder of a well known HTML email software company whose 'Email Marketing Director' software currently runs the NaturalNews subscription database. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and martial arts training. He's also author a large number of health books offered by Truth Publishing and is the creator of numerous reference website including NaturalPedia.com and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. His websites also include the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the innate healing ability of the human body. Known as the 'Health Ranger,' Adams' personal health statistics and mission statements are located at www.HealthRanger.org

Last week, I wrote a few words on Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, his love of Ayn Rand, and how Silicon Valley's growing Randian obsession risks turning ''Disruptive'' companies into raging assholes.

Judging by the volume of responses '-- here on PandoDaily, on Twitter, and by email '-- I was far from alone in my concerns. Surprisingly, even people close to the company chimed in, privately of course, to share their mounting alarm at the direction Uber is heading, particularly with regards to Kalanick's war with the NY TLC.

And yet, predictably (given how many copies of ''Atlas Shrugged'' sell every day in Northern California), there were still a smattering of people who came to Kalanick's defense, casting him as a latter day Robin Hood.

Quoth one commenter: ''Travis's job is to improve transportation for millions'... I think history is going to side with him as having made a more lasting, positive contribution to the world.''

Indeed. Consider the company's response to the devastation caused to New York by Hurricane Sandy'...

The price gouging at a time when New York's entire public transportation system is down would be icky enough, but the company's justification was disingenuous even by its standards'...

It's the drivers, you see. The only way to get them to come into the city is by doubling rates. The fact that Uber takes 20 percent of every fare, and so is also making twice as much money itself, is just a happy coincidence.

Downstream in New Jersey, the price hike would be very, very illegal '-- the state's anti-gouging legislation outlaws price increases over 10 percent during states of emergency. Said Governor Chris Christie: ''The State Division of Consumer Affairs will look closely at any and all complaints about alleged price gouging. Anyone found to have violated the law will face significant penalties.''

New York also has anti-gouging laws, although they don't give an actual percentage that is automatically considered to constitute gouging. From the AG's website'...

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today issued an open letter to vendors in areas forecast to be affected by Hurricane Sandy to warn against price gouging, the inflation of the price of necessary goods and services. General Business Law prohibits such increase in costs of essential items like food, water, gas, generators, batteries and flashlights, and services like transportation, during natural disasters or other events that disrupt the market.

''While most vendors understand that customers are also neighbors, and would never think of taking advantage of others during such disruptive times, these circumstances always require an extra sense of vigilance and preparation,'' Attorney General Schneiderman wrote. ''As Attorney General, it is my responsibility to enforce the price gouging law, and while my hope is that I will not need to do so, my office is certainly prepared.''

To Uber fans, of course, the above is (somehow) just another example of evil lawmakers trying to stop Saint Travis from helping his fellow man. And the fact that, after a few hours of lining its pockets, Uber finally backed down and agreed to pay drivers an increased rate but keep fares at their normal levels, is evidence that market forces work even faster than regulators. (Side note: do check out Business Insider's story about Uber's climbdown which neglects to mention any of the PR disaster that preceded it. Somewhere an Uber PR flack is getting a 100 percent bonus payment of his or her own.)

For the rest of us, though, Uber's response to Sandy gives a useful foretaste of what Travis Kalanick has in mind when he promotes his utopian ideal of a totally unregulated cab market.

In October 1997, emergency management officials in Westchester County, New York ran a hurricane simulation for their area.

The fictional storm was loosely based on the 1938 Long Island Express Hurricane, which caused extreme devastation on Long Island and in Westchester County.

The practice hurricane was set to come inland on Saturday evening, October 4th as a category two hurricane just east of New York City.

The advisories used in the drill were eerily predictive of what would happen just over fifteen years later as a very real and very serious Hurricane Sandy came ashore. The central pressure in the advisories 12 hours before landfall was 935 millibars. The maximum winds were similar. The track even curved around eastern North Carolina before turning toward the north.

But what made it really eerie was that the name of the practice hurricane. Can you guess what it was?

One of the best things about nuclear energy is that the fuel is cheap and densely concentrated. That characteristic enables facilities to be hardened against external events, and has the potential to reduce the vulnerability of nuclear energy facilities to infrastructure damage that happens outside of the facility.

The low cost fuel also enables a larger portion of the resources provided by selling a valuable product like electricity to be used for investments in people; highly-trained, well-motivated staffs are a powerful asset at nuclear power stations that enable safe response to rare events. I will refrain from calling the events unexpected; there are few groups of people in the world who are more imaginative in building scenarios of what might go wrong than those who are involved in accident analysis or disaster preparedness at nuclear power plants.

As someone who has a pretty good understanding of the inside story of nuclear energy facilities in the United States, I published the following tweet just before 6:00 am on October 28, 2012

Rod Adams '@AtomicrodWHEN #nuclear plants on US east coast weather yet another large storm, will more people realize they are an asset rather than a threat?

The Nuclear Energy Institute has published a summary of the performance of the 34 nuclear facilities that are located in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. The score is pretty impressive '' of the 34 plants in the path, 24 kept providing power, 7 were already shutdown for scheduled maintenance and 3 experienced automatic protective actions due to storm related disturbances in the grid or in supporting systems. The crews at the plants took appropriate actions and there was never any risk to the public.Of course, some of the usual suspects who have either never liked nuclear energy or who hold a personal grudge against the established nuclear industry were able to find receptive audiences for their usual servings of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Democracy Now asked their favorite ''former nuclear industry senior vice president'', Arnie Gundersen to explain why people who have plenty of more important concerns should be distracted by worry about what might happen at distant nuclear plants. Russia Today provided Professor Chris Busby with another venue for reaching potential customers for the anti-radiation pills left over from his Fukushima related sales effort.Kevin Kamps, from Beyond Nuclear, and Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioner who has served on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists for many years, made appearances and provided their reliable quotes about why storms like Sandy show that nuclear energy facilities are especially vulnerable '' in their opinion.

Though they did not get the same kind of national news coverage, there was much more useful and fact-based commentary by people like Will Davis (Spent Fuel Pool at Oyster Creek</> and a series of storm sitreps onAtomic Power Review), Dr. Jim Conca (Don't Politicize Sandy '' Hurricane Normal Problem for Nukes and Bob Apthorpe (@arclight) explaining how nuclear professionals take storms seriously so that the public can focus on more important and immediate concerns.

I do want to go back to something I said in the first paragraph '' the basic characteristics of nuclear fuel, including its incredible energy density, make it possible to design nuclear facilities that are not vulnerable to infrastructure damage outside of the plant. Designers of our current fleet of commercial power plants, however, did not do a great job of taking advantage of that characteristic. For a variety of reasons, they often have to shutdown if there is an issue with off-site power or cooling water intakes.

I have it on good authority that at least some of the systems being conceived today include design choices that make them more resilient, with the ability to keep powering on through events that would trip our older reactors. As a former submarine officer, I never did figure out why people chose to design grid dependent nuclear systems. There were no transmission lines connected to the facilities I learned to operate; I am pretty sure that my aircraft carrier trained colleagues would make the same statement.

Many, if not most, of my nuclear energy colleagues believe that our biggest hurdle is overcoming public fears. They believe that the main reason nuclear energy is not more popular is that the public is misinformed by the media. What they do not understand is that selling energy is perhaps the world's largest and most influential business, but it is a business where finding markets (customers) is at least as important as finding and producing the resources.

In my analysis, the main reason that nuclear energy is not more successful in the United States and western Europe is that our competitors are eating our lunch in the fundamental business endeavor of attracting an increasing number of paying customers.

While browsing this morning, I ran across a well-designed, and probably well-funded ad campaign from Shell Oil touting natural gas as a cleaner fossil fuel that produces about 50% of the emissions of burning coal when used in an electricity production facility.

Producing electricity is the application that currently accounts for nearly all of uranium fission's market share. In business school terms, central station power plants are the ''sweet spot'' for nuclear reactors since they are the easiest application for achieving the scale economies that allow us to invest in all of the security, redundant infrastructure, and overreacting regulatory ratcheting that our competitors have imposed on our technology.

As you watch that short clip '' and I recommend several viewings, paying critical attention to the imagery and accompanying words '' think about how it would have to be worded if Shell Oil honestly admitted that it has more than just coal as a competitor in its target market. While natural gas may produce just 50% of the emissions of coal, and while it may be the cleanest burning fossil fuel it produces at least 30-50 times as much CO2 per unit of electricity produced AND it has other emissions of concern that are not produced by atomic fission.In terms of sustainability '' which is the closing argument for natural gas in the ad clip '' the 87 year supply of natural gas remaining deep underground in the United States pales in comparison to the inexhaustible supply of potential energy that is locked up inside of our uranium and thorium resources. Those resource estimates are even less favorable for natural gas if you recognize that its longevity assumes that we maintain our current consumption rate (24.3 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year in 2011) AND that we are successful in extracting every last molecule of the proven, probable, possible and speculative resources that make up the Potential Gas Committee's estimate of our total resources (2170 TCF as of Dec 2010).

Aside: Just in case any of you check those numbers to realize that 2170/24.3 = 89, not 87, please recall that the total resource figure was computed for the end of 2010 and it is now November 2012. The clock keeps running and the gas keeps getting burned at a rate far higher than any possible replacement mechanism from natural hydrocarbon production cycles. End Aside.

So my message this morning, fellow nuclear energy professionals, is that we must get our collective heads out of the sand and recognize that our competitors are working hard to capture our markets and that they are doing it with ads that are deceptively lacking in some key factual comparisons.

This is probably not the most polite time to mention that the natural gas industry's infrastructure vulnerabilities contributed to a number of serious, fatal fires during Hurricane Sandy, but I will anyway. In contrast, the 34 nuclear plants in areas hit by the storm operated safely and relatively reliably, with only 3 forced outages and one plant where the effects of the storm were serious enough to move beyond the ''unusual event'' stage to the ''alert'' stage in the NRC's four level emergency classification system.

I noticed repetitious natural gas ads played frequently during the Fukushima Frenzy. That experience reinforced a key marketing lesson as taught by some of the world's most experienced and successful marketers of a product that has enormous benefits but carries a certain amount of known risk. The lesson is that it rarely hurts to tout your successes when your competition is down and to do it in a way that helps direct attention to that competitor's current challenges.

I have no regrets about piling on when a strong competitor in the energy production and supply business is having issues that result in substantial property destruction and human fatalities. I recognize that the competition would like to sweep its challenges out of the public view, and I suspect they will be quite successful in their effort. After all, they have regularly invested in high dollar advertising campaigns and show every sign of continuing to be a reliable revenue stream for any moderately cooperative media enterprise.

Personal aside: This is the month of Movember, a time to recall that men face unique health challenges in the form of prostate and testicular cancer, two killers that are not frequently mentioned in public. Movember is partnered with the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the LIVESTRONG Foundation. I've shaved my trademark mustache to start the month, but will be growing a new one along with my Mo-Bros. Updated photos of my less than pretty mug will appear in the widget in the right-hand column of the site.

You can support the cause by donating to my Movember fundraising campaign. Several members of the Atomic Insights community of contributors have provided a head start by adding $175 before the month even started. Thank you very much, Eric, Meredith, Joel, David, Carl, Robert, Jeff and John. End Aside.

Related: Hurricane Sandy Under Aerosol Geoengineering by DHS to Modify Intensity and Land-fall?

By Melissa MeltonInfowars.comOctober 30, 2012

While the debate rages regarding whether or not the U.S. government uses weather manipulation technology to steer storms like Hurricane Sandy, further evidence shows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been engaged in research to do just that for years.

In 2008, an article in New Scientist discussed a new DHS project that funded research into guiding and directing the intensity of hurricanes.

Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP) worked with Project Stormfury veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts ''to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.'' HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.

In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum regarding OAR's review of a ''Statement for Work'' for HAMP.

''While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,'' Spinrad wrote.

He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature's inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA's mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).

NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes.

Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge.

Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead with their research without NOAA's participation.

A paper co-written by several participants in the HAMP project including Joe Golden entitled, ''Aerosol Effects and Microstructure on the Intensity of Tropical Cyclones,'' was released in the July 2012 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, ''We recommend that hurricane reconnaissance and research airplanes are equipped with aerosol and cloud physics instruments and fly patterns that will allow such measurements.'' Drone use in ''areas where safety concerns preclude aircraft measurements'' was also called for.

The spraying of aerosols into the air, otherwise known by the monicker ''chemtrails,'' is promoted under the guise of geoengineering with a surface excuse to halt global warming.

The practice has been openly called for more and more recently, although the chemtrail phenomenon has already been reported across the globe for years now.

In the Environmental Research Letters journal, scientists' most recent geoengineering proposal detailed an ''affordable'' $5 billion project wherein airplanes will spray sulfur particles in the atmosphere to cool the planet.

In HAMP's final report, authors concluded, ''Pollution aerosols reduced the cloud drop size and suppressed the warm rain forming processes in the external spiral cloud bands of the storms.''

It was also mentioned, ''During the past decade it was found that aerosols (including anthropogenic ones) substantially affect cloud microphysics,'' proving deliberate chemtrailing has been occurring for at least the past ten years.

Though the paper was labeled ''final report,'' further journal articles regarding HAMP have been released, and the HAMP project was reportedly not scheduled to end until 2016.

The question remains: With its bizarre combination of elements, was deliberate manipulation through HAMP research at play in Hurricane Sandy?

Join theintelhub.com FORUMS to Talk About Articles Like This One - ENTER NOW

The Earthquake originated on the island of Haida Gwaii, other wise know as the Queen Charlotte Islands region. The islands are located along the Queen Charlotte Fault, which is an active transform fault that produces significant earthquakes every 3--30 years. (the last major one happening in 1949, that measure 8.1 in magnitude)

As soon as I caught the news of this quake today, the first thing that came to mind was. Wasn't Haida Gwaii recently in the news?

Worlds Largest Geoengineering Test Conducted Off Canadian West Coast

"In July 2012 a private businessman named Russ George, or as the Vancouver Sun has dubbed him the "rogue climate hacker". Dumped over 100 tonnes of iron into the pacific ocean, just off the coast of British Columbia (Haida Gwaii) in the largest ever geoengineering experiment.

The iron is meant to help spawn plankton (main stream press have dubbed these creatures "artificial plankton") that will absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed. A geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilization. George hopes that this will be lucrative in carbon credits. But even the strongest of man made climate change proponents agree that he has gone too far, and some are outraged. According to the main stream news outlets."

Continue Reading

Could this be simply be a coincidence? Well as many in the alternative media have realized. Coincidences in situations like this are very, very rare.

This type of situation would also be ideal for any private corporation of government in the chance of a disaster in result of a geoengineering experiment of that scale. It gives plausible deniability. Since this is in the area of an active fault line, there is no chance of proving that the experiment caused the earthquake.

The idea that your home is your castle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. So what if the police bring a dog to sniff for evidence at the castle door?

Two cases from Florida, to be argued Wednesday, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide when the police need a search warrant to use drug-sniffing dogs at a house, and how much legal authority a dog's alert gives police to search a car.

The front-door case comes from Dade County, where police received a Crime Stoppers tip that occupants of a house were growing marijuana. After watching the house for about 15 minutes, police and federal agents sent for Franky, a drug-sniffing dog.

A police handler walked the dog up to the front door, where Franky alerted the officer by sitting down after sniffing at the base of the door. After using that result to get a search warrant, police entered the house and found marijuana plants growing.

But a judge threw the evidence out, ruling that "the use of a drug detector dog at the defendant's house door constituted an unreasonable and illegal search." In other words, the court said, the police should have gotten their search warrant before they sent for Franky.

The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of police, acting without a warrant, to use dogs at airports for sniffing the outside of luggage suspected of carrying contraband or to sniff the outside of cars at roadside checkpoints.

The devastation caused by Sandy has some wondering whether next Tuesday's election could be delayed, at least in the states suffering the most from the storm. NBC News Justice Correspondent, Pete Williams looks at the legal question.

But the court has also said that police, without a warrant, could not stand on the street and aim a thermal imaging device at a house to see if marijuana was being grown inside with heat lamps. Such an intrusion, it held, would reveal the private activities of a homeowner, including such intimate details as "at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath."

The state of Florida argues that there's no violation of privacy in a dog's sniff at the door because drug dogs alert police only to the presence of illegal substances, something in which a homeowner has no privacy interest.

But the state's supreme court rejected that argument, finding that the Fourth Amendment's protections are at their highest at a house. It found the dog sniff to be "a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home."

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers urges the Supreme Court to affirm that ruling. "Allowing suspicionless dog sniffs of houses would permit indiscriminate sweeps of residential neighborhoods, a practice that some law enforcement officials have already begun to employ," the group says in a legal brief filed in the case.

In the second case, a Seminole County deputy sheriff pulled over a pickup truck because it had an expired license. When he noticed that the driver was shaking and breathing rapidly, exhibiting behavior consistent with drug abuse, he asked for permission to search the truck.

The driver said no, so the deputy brought out Aldo, a drug-sniffing dog, from his patrol car to sniff around the truck. Aldo alerted on the driver's door handle. Considering that to be sufficient cause to search the car, the deputy found chemicals commonly used to make methamphetamines. The driver then admitted he bought them for that purpose.

The Florida Supreme Court threw out that evidence, too, concluding that there's no sure way to know exactly what caused the dog to alert. "There is no uniform standard in this state or nationwide for an acceptable level of training, testing, or certification for drug-detection dogs," it said.

The Obama administration is urging the court to rule for the deputy and Aldo. After all, the Justice Department argues, what a policeman sees, hears, and smells can often establish the legal justification for a search without a warrant.

Dogs, the government says, do it better. "An alert by a dog trained to identify certain odors provides an even stronger basis for probable cause to search a location for the odor's source," the Justice Department says in its brief supporting the state.

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.

CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission '-- and without a warrant '-- to install multiple ''covert digital surveillance cameras'' in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans' privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.

''The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance,'' Callahan wrote.

Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million. Mendoza and Magana asked Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that ''No Trespassing'' signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.

Callahan based his reasoning on a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that ''open fields'' could be searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth Amendment. What lawyers call ''curtilage,'' on the other hand, meaning the land immediately surrounding a residence, still has greater privacy protections.

''Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment,'' Justice Department prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

As digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful, the Justice Department's argument would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight '-- subject only to budgetary limits and political pressure.

About four days after the DEA's warrantless installation of surveillance cameras, a magistrate judge did subsequently grant a warrant. But attorneys for Mendoza and Magana noticed that the surveillance took place before the warrant was granted.

''That one's actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society's concept of privacy,'' wrote Brett Reetz, Magana's attorney, in a legal filing last month. ''The owner and his guest'... had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy.''

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons Company, a case that could further undermine the "first sale doctrine." First sale, described in section 109 of the US Copyright Act, gives people the right to resell, lend, or give away the works that they've bought, even if those works contain copyrighted elements.

Textbook publisher Wiley claims that this doctrine only applies to goods that are manufactured in the U.S., and that the defendant, Supap Kirtsaeng, was infringing its copyright by purchasing books at a reduced rate in his native Thailand and selling them below list price in the States.

The effects of such a dubious interpretation could be far-reaching for American consumers, and it appears several Supreme Court Justices were appropriately concerned about the implications of Wiley's proposed geographic limit on first sale. Of course, it's unwise to predict how the Court will decide a case based solely on comments during the oral arguments, but they can provide insight into what factors the Justices are considering. Today the Court mirrored our concerns about the right of Americans to resell the goods that they've legally acquired '-- from books to smartphones to cars '-- just because those goods happen to contain copyrighted materials and were manufactured overseas.

Defenders of Wiley's position are quick to denounce those concerns as overblown. It's curious, then, that Wiley's own lawyer, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, was hard-pressed to explain why. Justice Breyer asked about specific examples '-- buying a book overseas to give to your wife in the U.S., or reselling a Toyota manufactured in Japan with numerous individually copyrighted components '-- and did not seem impressed with the answers he got. And when Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Roberts questioned Olson about the "parade of horribles," raised by Kirtsaeng and supporting amici (including EFF), he asserted that, yes, indeed, sales of foreign made goods might require approval from the copyright holder, whether the seller is a Toyota distributor or a university library:

'... if you're going to use the product created by someone else in a way that's contemplated by the copyright laws, maybe it's required that you actually comply with the copyright laws by going to the owner of the copyright and saying, look, here's what I propose to do, can I have a license to do this?

It goes without saying that a secondary market that exists only with the permission of innumerable copyright holders is a poor substitute for the genuine article. Consumers would be worse off for it, and it's not what Congress intended.

Later, in questioning the Deputy Solicitor General arguing on behalf of the government, Justice Alito was even more explicit about the choice facing the Court:

Which of the following is worse: All of the horribles that the Petitioner outlines to the extent they are realistic, or the frustration of market segmentation, to the extent that would occur, if Petitioner's position were accepted?

Pressed in this manner, the government conceded:

I would say that the consequence that all foreign-made goods, even if imported into the United States with the authorization of the U.S. copyright owner, are subject to continuing licensing requirements, etc., I would say that would be worse than the frustration of market segmentation that would occur under Petitioner's view.

The Court also appropriately persisted in asking questions about the perverse incentive that Wiley's interpretation would provide to manufacturers in moving their production overseas.

Critics of the Second Circuit's decision in Kirtsaeng have been accused of exaggeration. Perhaps Justice Breyer put it best today:

The main point is that horribles haven't occurred. Right? Sometimes horribles don't occur because no one can believe it.

It's gratifying that the Court seems to appreciate the ramifications of this case, even if Wiley's attorneys do not. We'll be watching closely as the Court releases an opinion.

But that's not end of the story. Regardless of the Court's decision, we need to be prepared to tell elected lawmakers that we stand up for first sale, whether the threat is through arcane import regulations or onerous EULAs. EFF has joined Demand Progress and the Free Software Foundation in giving you a platform to contact your legislators to urge them to stand up for first sale. Take action today.

And please show your support by embedding our graphic into your website. It's easy! Just copy and paste this code into the HTML of your site:

<a href="https://eff.org/r.a7pC"><img src="https://eff.org/files/owned.jpg" alt="You've Been Owned: Stand Up For Digital First Sale" /></a><br/>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to advance the Federal Government's use of local partnerships to address homeland security challenges, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section1. Policy. The purpose of this order is to maximize the Federal Government's ability to develop local partnerships in the United States to support homeland security priorities. Partnerships are collaborative working relationships in which the goals, structure, and roles and responsibilities of the relationships are mutually determined. Collaboration enables the Federal Government and its partners to use resources more efficiently, build on one another's expertise, drive innovation, engage in collective action, broaden investments to achieve shared goals, and improve performance. Partnerships enhance our ability to address homeland security priorities, from responding to natural disasters to preventing terrorism, by utilizing diverse perspectives, skills, tools, and resources.

The National Security Strategy emphasizes the importance of partnerships, underscoring that to keep our Nation safe "we must tap the ingenuity outside government through strategic partnerships with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations. Such partnerships are critical to U.S. success at home and abroad, and we will support them through enhanced opportunities for engagement, coordination, transparency, and information sharing." This approach recognizes that, given the complexities and range of challenges, we must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States.

(a) White House Homeland Security Partnership Council. There is established a White House Homeland Security Partnership Council (Council) to foster local partnerships -- between the Federal Government and the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement -- to address homeland security challenges. The Council shall be chaired by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (Chair), or a designee from the National Security Staff.

(b) Council Membership.

(i) Pursuant to the nomination process established in subsection (b)(ii) of this section, the Council shall be composed of Federal officials who are from field offices of the executive departments, agencies, and bureaus (agencies) that are members of the Steering Committee established in subsection (c) of this section, and who have demonstrated an ability to develop, sustain, and institutionalize local partnerships to address policy priorities.

(ii) The nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council shall be established by the Steering Committee. Based on those criteria, agency heads may select and present to the Steering Committee their nominee or nominees to represent them on the Council. The Steering Committee shall consider all of the nominees and decide by consensus which of the nominees shall participate on the Council. Each member agency on the Steering Committee, with the exception of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, may have at least one representative on the Council.

(c) Steering Committee. There is also established a Steering Committee, chaired by the Chair of the Council, to provide guidance to the Council and perform other functions as set forth in this order. The Steering Committee shall include a representative at the Deputy agency head level, or that representative's designee, from the following agencies:

(i) Department of State;

(ii) Department of the Treasury;

(iii) Department of Defense;

(iv) Department of Justice;

(v) Department of the Interior;

(vi) Department of Agriculture;

(vii) Department of Commerce;

(viii) Department of Labor;

(ix) Department of Health and Human Services;

(x) Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(xi) Department of Transportation;

(xii) Department of Energy;

(xiii) Department of Education;

(xiv) Department of Veterans Affairs;

(xv) Department of Homeland Security;

(xvi) Office of the Director of National Intelligence;

(xvii) Environmental Protection Agency;

(xviii) Small Business Administration; and

(xix) Federal Bureau of Investigation.

At the invitation of the Chair, representatives of agencies not listed in subsection (c) of this section or other executive branch entities may attend and participate in Steering Committee meetings as appropriate.

(d) Administration. The Chair or a designee shall convene meetings of the Council and Steering Committee, determine their agendas, and coordinate their work. The Council may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Council members or their designees, as appropriate.

Sec. 3. Mission and Function of the Council and Steering Committee. (a) The Council shall, consistent with guidance from the Steering Committee:

(i) advise the Chair and Steering Committee members on priorities, challenges, and opportunities for local partnerships to support homeland security priorities, as well as regularly report to the Steering Committee on the Council's efforts;

(ii) promote homeland security priorities and opportunities for collaboration between Federal Government field offices and State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders;

(iii) advise and confer with State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders and agencies interested in expanding or building local homeland security partnerships;

(iv) raise awareness of local partnership best practices that can support homeland security priorities;

(v) as appropriate, conduct outreach to representatives of the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement entities with relevant expertise for local homeland security partnerships, and collaborate with other Federal Government bodies; and

(vi) convene an annual meeting to exchange key findings, progress, and best practices.

(b) The Steering Committee shall:

(i) determine the scope of issue areas the Council will address and its operating protocols, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget;

(ii) establish the nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council as set forth in section 2(b)(ii) of this order;

(iii) provide guidance to the Council on the activities set forth in subsection (a) of this section; and

(iv) within 1 year of the selection of the Council members, and annually thereafter, provide a report on the work of the Council to the President through the Chair.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) The heads of agencies participating in the Steering Committee shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to implement this order. Each agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals; or

(iii) the functions of the Overseas Security Advisory Council.

(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DUBAI (Reuters) - A gas pipeline feeding Yemen's only liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal was blown up again on Tuesday night, the operating company said on Wednesday.

"Yemen LNG confirms the sabotage of the 38 inch gas pipeline that links the block 18 to the Balhaf terminal on the Gulf of Aden," said the company, run by France's Total. "The explosion occurred at 2200 on October 30, 2012 at 295 km north of Balhaf Liquefaction Plant."

Yemen's oil and gas pipelines have been sabotaged repeatedly since anti-government protests last year created a power vacuum, which armed groups have exploited to cause fuel shortages and slash export earnings in the impoverished country.

The 320-km (100-mile) pipeline supplying the $4.5-billion plant has been attacked several times by suspected al Qaeda-linked gunmen after military strikes on Islamist militants.

The Balhaf facility, which opened in 2009, has the capacity to supply up to 6.7 million tonnes and delivers LNG, gas-cooled to liquid for export by ship, under long-term contracts to GDF Suez, Total and Korea Gas Corp.

WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish investigators found traces of explosives on the wreckage of the government jet that crashed in Russia two years ago, killing Poland's president and 95 others, daily Rzeczpospolita reported on Tuesday.

Without citing sources, the newspaper said prosecutors and explosive experts who examined the remains of the plane in Russia found signs of TNT and nitroglycerin on the wings and in the cabin, including on 30 seats.

Traces of explosives were also found in the area where the Tu-154 crashed during its approach to a small airport near the Russian city of Smolensk on April 10, 2010, the daily reported.

Poland's military prosecutor's office plans to respond to the report later on Tuesday, its spokesman said.

Russian investigators had blamed the Polish crew for trying to land in heavy fog, while their Polish counterparts also said the airport controllers should not have allowed the plane to attempt an approach.

Some rightist groups in Poland, including main opposition party Law and Justice, had rejected the findings and suggested the crash could have been an assassination of President Lech Kaczynski and political and military leaders who flew with him.

In their official reports, investigators said they found no proof of the involvement of third parties.

The investigators have not ruled out the possibility that the traces of explosives come from unexploded bombs dating back to World War Two that could have remained in the area where the aircraft came down, the newspaper said.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke at a conference on cybersecurity.'She said she hoped the Senate would revisit legislation on the issue after the presidential election.'She also talked about Hurricane .. Read MoreHomeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke at a conference on cybersecurity.'She said she hoped the Senate would revisit legislation on the issue after the presidential election.'She also talked about Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts, saying the federal government is ''moving heaven and earth'' to help states restore power to affected areas.

At a Washington, D.C., event today, Janet Napolitano warned that several major American financial institutions are being actively attacked by cyberhackers. But she offered no details.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today that hackers are "actively" attacking some of the country's largest financial institutions.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

(Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security)According to a report in The Hill, America's top security official issued the warning at a Washington Post event today, but didn't specify the nature of the attacks.

"Right now, financial institutions are actively under attack," The Hill quoted Napolitano as saying. "We know that. I'm not giving you any classified information... I will say this has involved some of our nation's largest institutions. We've also had our stock exchanges attacked over the last [few] years, so we know... there are vulnerabilities."

Napolitano also said that the hackers have been successfully pilfering funds from the banks, but wouldn't elaborate.

Earlier this month, cyberthieves stole $400,000 from Bank of America, and earlier in the fall, The Hill reported, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other leading financial institutions were plagued with denial of service attacks.

Napolitano used the recent power outages -- and resulting loss of services -- on the East Coast due to Hurricane Sandy as an example of the disruption that cyberhackers could cause, and of the need to adequately protect America's vital institutions outside digital infiltration. "One of the possible areas of attack, of course, is attacks on our nation's control systems -- the control systems that operate our utilities, our water plants, our pipelines [and] our financial institutions," The Hill quoted Napolitano as saying. "If you think that a critical systems attack that takes down a utility even for a few hours is not serious, just look at what is happening now that Mother Nature has taken out those utilities."

In e-mail exchanges earlier this year, Thomas Crowley, a retired climate scientist who's been a longtime source, proposed the term ''reverse tribalism'' for a trait in some people studying and communicating about human-driven climate change.

The trait, he proposed, comes to the surface when such people confront strong messaging on the need for emissions reductions amid enduringly murky science on what's driving some particular extreme environmental phenomenon in the world '-- whether a brief period of widespread melting on the Greenland ice sheet, a potent drought, a tornado outbreak or the extreme event of the moment, the hybrid nor'easter/hurricane known on Twitter as #Frankenstorm.

I've posted his essay on Slideshare because it's worth reading and sharing on its own. But I wanted to address his notion now in the context of the intense push to interpret the current superstorm in the context of action on greenhouse gases, and my reaction to it on the blog so far.

Am I ''guilty'' of reverse tribalism myself?

I'd say yes, with an asterisk. Let's explore a bit:

I have sometimes perhaps been too eager to challenge definitive statements related to human-driven global warming for fear they will provide ammunition to those working to foment doubt and maintain stasis on our energy menu.

It's that tendency of mine that probably prompted this tweet by David Roberts of Grist.org today:

@Revkin People are discussing climate change all over the place! You really need to work harder to tamp this down.

'-- David Roberts (@drgrist)29 Oct 12

My self diagnosis presumes that I see myself as, by nature, a member of some particular tribe. Indeed, I grew up caring deeply about the environment, so much so that as a kid I once left a threatening note on the seat of a bulldozer digging into a last patch of woods near our home in suburban Rhode Island. If I had a choice, I'd absolutely rather sing about the Hudson River with Pete Seeger than hang out in Washington, D.C., bars with energy lobbyists.

But as a journalist, I grew into the habit of detaching my personal passions from my profession's need to sort through arguments for some sense of bedrock. So I'm a member of the journalism tribe, as well. That hasn't changed with my move to the Op-Ed side of the paper. My opinion is that reality matters, however inconvenient it may be.

I never obtained an advanced science degree, but in majoring in biology and working in marine fisheries science long ago, and then through decades of reading and reporting on science, I developed a passion for this endeavor as the most powerful tool yet devised to separate myths and spin from durable knowledge, including knowledge of uncertainty. So I'm in the ''defenders of science'' tribe, too.

So I think I exhibit what you might call intertribal tension syndrome more than the reverse tribalism trait.

There's another factor in play, for sure. It's what Dan Kahan of the Cultural Cognition project at Yale calls identity-protective cognition. In a fascinating post, coincidentally published today, he described this as ''a species of motivated reasoning'' that ''reflects the tendency of individuals to form perceptions of fact that promote their connection to, and standing in, important groups.''

He goes on to say:

There are lots of instances of this. Consider sports fans who genuinely see contentious officiating calls as correct or incorrect depending on whether those calls go for or against their favorite team.

The cultural cognition thesis says that many contested issues of risk'--from climate change to nuclear power, from gun control to the HPV vaccine'--involve this same dynamic. The ''teams,'' in this setting, are the groups that subscribe to one or another of the cultural worldviews associated with ''hierarchy-egalitarianism'' and ''individualism-communitarianism.''

Put those two traits together, in any person, and you're bound to get some moments where one tribal affiliation wins out over another.

To step outside what Randy Olson calls the ''nerd loop'' (the domain of those thinking a lot about climate, risk and communication), here's a quick reprise of points that I've made through 25 years of covering the two-way relationship between humans and climate:

1. The unerring buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is bound to come with regrets.

2. Many parts of the planet, from sub-Saharan Africa to the northeastern United States, are subject to extreme storms, superdroughts or other climate-related disruptions with or without a push from greenhouse gases. Greenhouse heating will worsen some extremes and is almost assuredly contributing to some (but not all) now.

3. Limiting harm from inevitable hard knocks that come with such disruptions is job one on a crowding, busy planet.

4. Working to shift from energy norms that come with large emissions of carbon dioxide is an imperative in this century (along with bringing energy by any smart means to the billions of people without reasonable sources now). But even a crash effort to blunt the greenhouse-gas buildup wouldn't avert the need for step 3.

The wind is howling ever louder here in the Hudson Valley, and the lights are flickering with greater frequency, so it's time to end this post before my connection to The Times is lost.

Who needs Fox when you've got CBS doing double duty for them with interviews like this one with Sen. John McCain on Face the Nation? The Republicans have been foaming at the mouth since the embassy attack over a month and a half ago in Libya and now we can add McCain's name to the long list of Republicans who have compared "Benghazi-Gate" to Watergate or called for impeaching President Obama for how the matter has been handled.

I'm sure there are others I missed, but here's at least a partial list of those who have been making the same hyperbolic attacks:

Rush Limbaugh: RUSH: Benghazi cover-up "This dwarfs Watergate'

Ron Christie: Worse than Watergate??!! WTF

Sean Hannity and Donald Rumsfeld: Hannity Trots Out Donald Rumsfeld To Help Turn Benghazi Into Watergate

They've all got their talking points aligned perfectly, don't they? And last but not least, here's Grampy McCain from this Sunday: McCain: Libya either a "cover up" or "incompetence":

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argued this morning that Libya has made foreign policy a major part of the presidential campaign and that President Obama has shown "the worst kind of incompetence" on the issue.

"I don't know if it's either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence, which doesn't qualify the president as commander in chief," McCain said on "Face the Nation" today. He called the administration's handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a "debacle" that has "exposed the failures of the Obama foreign policy."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on the Libya issue.

McCain said the "worst" aspects of the Libya aftermath are the "gross, gross, outrageous statements" made by administration officials, including the president, in the days after the attack. He specifically referred to statements by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice made shortly after the attacks in which she blamed the violence on a "spontaneous" demonstration over an anti-Muslim American made film.

"We now know there was no demonstration. There was no mob," McCain said, referring to surveillance records he received from inside the consulate. "So for literally days and days, they told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever," McCain added.

McCain also compared Libya to Watergate saying, "Nobody died in Watergate. But this is either a massive cover-up or incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said. "The American people may take that into consideration a week from Tuesday."

"What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?" McCain asked rhetorically.

Who needs Fox when you've got CBS doing double duty for them with interviews like this one with Sen. John McCain on Face the Nation? The Republicans have been foaming at the mouth since the embassy attack over a month and a half ago in Libya and now we can add McCain's name to the long list of Republicans who have compared "Benghazi-Gate" to Watergate or called for impeaching President Obama for how the matter has been handled.

I'm sure there are others I missed, but here's at least a partial list of those who have been making the same hyperbolic attacks:

Rush Limbaugh: RUSH: Benghazi cover-up "This dwarfs Watergate'

Ron Christie: Worse than Watergate??!! WTF

Sean Hannity and Donald Rumsfeld: Hannity Trots Out Donald Rumsfeld To Help Turn Benghazi Into Watergate

They've all got their talking points aligned perfectly, don't they? And last but not least, here's Grampy McCain from this Sunday: McCain: Libya either a "cover up" or "incompetence":

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argued this morning that Libya has made foreign policy a major part of the presidential campaign and that President Obama has shown "the worst kind of incompetence" on the issue.

"I don't know if it's either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence, which doesn't qualify the president as commander in chief," McCain said on "Face the Nation" today. He called the administration's handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a "debacle" that has "exposed the failures of the Obama foreign policy."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on the Libya issue.

McCain said the "worst" aspects of the Libya aftermath are the "gross, gross, outrageous statements" made by administration officials, including the president, in the days after the attack. He specifically referred to statements by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice made shortly after the attacks in which she blamed the violence on a "spontaneous" demonstration over an anti-Muslim American made film.

"We now know there was no demonstration. There was no mob," McCain said, referring to surveillance records he received from inside the consulate. "So for literally days and days, they told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever," McCain added.

McCain also compared Libya to Watergate saying, "Nobody died in Watergate. But this is either a massive cover-up or incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said. "The American people may take that into consideration a week from Tuesday."

"What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?" McCain asked rhetorically.

Myanmar's President Thein Sein talks during his first news conference since his re-appointment as head of the ruling party Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), at the presidential palace in Naypyitaw October 21, 2012.

ATHENS (Reuters) - Greek lawyers launched their defense of a prominent journalist on Thursday charged with breaking private data rules after he published the names of more than 2,000 wealthy Greeks believed to be holding Swiss bank accounts.

The printing of the "Lagarde List" by magazine editor Costas Vaxavanis has touched a nerve in almost-bankrupt Greece, where rampant tax evasion is undermining a struggle to cut public costs and raise revenue under an EU/IMF bailout deal.

His speedy arrest and trial following publication at the weekend has enraged many here already furious over consecutive governments' failure to crack down on a rich elite, who they blame for years of recession that has wiped out a fifth of economic output and hammered middle-class living standards.

Vaxevanis, editor of the "Hot Doc" weekly, was surrounded by fellow journalists and other supporters who packed the Athens courtroom as his lawyers began their defense.

They argued the prosecution had charged him without any of those on the list having filed a complaint about privacy violation, a rare occurrence in a freedom of speech or defamation case in Greece.

"He's been accused without reason," said Nicos Constantopoulous, his lawyer and a former leftist politician. "The principles of a fair trial are not being followed."

Under Greek laws covering sensitive data, a defendant must stand trial within 48 hours if arrested within a day of charges being filed in absentia. Vaxevanis faces up to two years in prison if convicted.

He has said he received the list, named after International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde who gave it to authorities in several EU countries in 2010 when she was French finance minister, from an anonymous source.

Another newspaper, daily Ta Nea, also published the 2,059 names, which includes several politicians as well as many businessmen, shipping magnates, doctors, lawyers and housewives, over 10 pages.

It said the accounts had held about 2 billion euros until 2007 but also made clear that there was no evidence any of them had broken tax evasion laws.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.

Telepictures, the syndicated arm of Warner Bros. studio, announced Monday that it will not be renewing Anderson Cooper's daytime talk show, Anderson Live, for a third season.

A result of continued soft ratings, despite a rebrand at its recent sophomore launch, the decision was first reported by The New York Times. The series will continue to air through summer 2013.

PHOTOS: The Most Talked About Names in TV News

"We are extremely proud of Anderson and the show that he and the entire production team have produced," read a statement The Hollywood Reporter received from Warner Bros. "While we made significant changes to the format, set and produced it live in its second season, the series will not be coming back for a third season in a marketplace that has become increasingly difficult to break through. We will continue to deliver top-quality shows throughout next summer.

Cooper, who still has a primetime job on his CNN series Anderson Cooper 360, was silent about the news on Twitter but also released a statement through show reps.

"I am very proud of the work that our terrific staff has put into launching and sustaining our show for two seasons," he said. "I am also grateful to Telepictures for giving me the opportunity, and indebted to viewers, who have responded so positively. I look forward to doing more great shows this season, and though I'm sorry we won't be continuing, I have truly enjoyed it."

PHOTOS: THR's 35 Most Powerful People in Media

Monday's Anderson Live did not address the news, with the host following the latest news on Hurricane Sandy.

Cooper's daytime effort adopted a live format for its second season, adding a revolving door of guest co-hosts in an attempt to boost interest after a lackluster freshman performance. Though the series recently saw an uptick in its ratings with women, its most recent week averaged just a 1.1 rating among households and an average 1.452 million viewers. Those figures put it well below syndicated daytime champs like Dr. Phil and Live! With Kelly and Michael -- and behind new series like Katie and Steve Harvey.

Whiskey companyJack Daniel's has recently released its 'Unaged Rye Whiskey', the first of its kind to be produced by the company in approximately 100 years.

What's special about the product is its clear liquor content'--different from the usual gold or brown liquor tones that the company is famous for producing.

Instead of allowing the whiskey to age, the company takes the beverage back to its original roots'--bottling it in its authentic state.

According toUncrate, the 'white whiskey' has ''a sweet and fruity smell, plenty of rye bite, and a crisp, dry finish''.

It will be available in Tennessee, US in December, and will only arrive elsewhere early next year.

[via Uncrate]

Creatives, have you joined the fastest-growing creative network yet?

The Bazaar is a online, global marketplace to buy and sell art and creative products. Creatives can choose to use our print-and-ship service to sell art prints around the world, or choose to ship custom products directly to buyers. Start to sell your creative works, or discover great works.

A Muslim doctor, Mohammed Kandil, has written a research paper arguing that the Muslim practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is neither harmful nor painful. FGM is the brutal Islamic religious rite in which a woman's genitalia are partially or fully cut off for non-medical reasons, so that sex is very painful for the woman and that she never experiences pleasure during sex. Most of the time it is done without anesthesia and the clitoris and/or labia are sliced off. It's simply incredible that any so-called medical professional''let alone an obstetrician/gynecologist''would claim that this is neither harmful nor painful. But Dr. Kandil does, claiming that because of ''pain management'' technology, this savage, misogynistic, barbaric procedure is okay.

Dr. Kandil is a member of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine-Menofyia University, in Shibin Elkom, Egypt. The title of his now-published ''research'' paper is absolutely ridiculous: ''Female Genital Cutting is a Harmful Practice: Where is the Evidence?'' Gee, I can't wait for the Muslim Brotherhood companion research paper: ''Chopping a Gay Man's Testicles Off is a Harmful Practice: Where is the Evidence?'' Until a couple of weeks ago, the paper was awaiting what is known as ''peer review,'' a requirement before it can be published. But, predictably, Dr. Kandil found at least two fellow Muslim doctors who both eagerly reviewed and approved his thesis.

They agree with Dr. Kandil that the any negative attention to FGM is an attack on Muslim ''traditions and cultural beliefs'' and that it is an attempt to ''Westernize'' Muslims. Yup, these two Muslim docs who ''treat'' women approved this, and they represent many of those''probably the vast majority''who treat women in the Muslim world (and that includes a good number of Muslim docs here in the United States):

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Uh-huh. The ''scientific standard'' of witch doctors, perhaps.

Here are some excerpts from this outrageous ''academic'' paper:

There is insufficient evidence to support the claims that genital cutting is a harmful procedure if performed by experienced personnel in a suitable theatre with facilities for pain control and anesthesia. Cutting, however, is advised not to go beyond type I [DS: Type I FGM is removal of the clitoris and the clitoral hood a/k/a a clitoridectomy]. . . .

In Islam, if female circumcision is desired by parents, it should not go beyond type I FGC [DS: Female Genital Cutting, the sanitized term Muslims use for what it really is: Mutilation] (Ia is removal of the prepuce and Ib is removal of the prepuce and clitoris) according to hadith ''Sunna type of circumcision''. This type of female genital surgery is equated with male genital surgery. In support of hadith, many studies showed that women with clitoridectomy ''type I cutting'' are less likely to develop gynecologic or obstetric complications compared to infibulated women ''type III''. Considering that the number of Moslems in the world ranks second, it seems logical to reconsider the legal attitude towards female circumcision and probably avoids the ban directed towards Sunna circumcision.

The decline in FGC practice is not proportionate to the efforts exerted. It is not easy to give up your traditions and cultural beliefs for what is considered, by many, to be an attempt to westernize societies in the third world. Many believe that national and international feminist organizations and child rights' advocates have propagated misleading or unproven information through the media in order to force governments to prohibit the procedure. In fact, all the above-mentioned health hazards were concluded from studies that showed inconsistent findings. Some of them confirmed the hazards of FGC while others failed to prove them. It is the author's view that none of these studies hold solid evidence to rely upon. These studies were either of retrospective design or studies depended on self-reported FGC and its health consequences. Such studies are imprecise and have low reliability1920. Research including reported data about past experiences will always be threatened by the individual's memory and the influence of exposure status on the recalling process.

FGM is amputation. Period. There is no excuse for it. It is not medically acceptable, no matter how many Muslim men parading as doctors claim otherwise. It's a form of torture that we would never even think of for the Gitmo detainees or other hardened Islamic terrorists. And, yet, this is halal [permitted] by these cretins.

I wish I could say this ''research paper'' is ''truly incredible.'' But it isn't. This is just same 'ole, same 'ole for the Muslim world. The savagery we see from that world on a daily basis never fails to top the previous savagery and absurd defense of the indefensible.

Even the increasing escalation of the savagery and the rhetoric in defense of the savagery never surprises. It's what we've come to expect.

BTW, read the courageous comments of Dr. Vitaly Citovsky, Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology atState University of New York '' Stonybrook, and the absurd mega-dhimmi response by the Rebecca Lawrence, F1000Research publisher, who provides of such mindless ''academic'' defenses of this Mengele-esque savagery in the name of scholarship in science and medicine:

Yup, multi-culturalism and political correctness must be pursued ad absurdum even in ''science'' and ''medicine'' to the point that the attitude is, ''who are we to judge Islamic barbarism?''

And when we're at that point''which we are (I told you two years ago about the American Academy of Pediatrics changing its position to approval of ''pin prick'' FGM to accommodate Muslim brutality toward girls)''we've lost the war.

If only Josef Mengele had changed his name to Youssef Mengele, he'd be a medical star today.

Oh, and don't worry, you won't see Sandra Fluke or her fellow screeching feminists say a peep about this actual war on women. They are too focused on the make believe one.

Boom! As Twitchy reported, President Obama spent part of yesterday in a canoodle-fest with Governor Christie in New Jersey. During his aerial survey of the devastating damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, he was greeted with this, Jersey-style!

Posted by Heartmind_Featured_, Diet, ToxicityThursday, November 1st, 2012(NaturalNews) As few as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, according to new results from the longest-ever running study on aspartame as a carcinogen in humans. Importantly, this is the most comprehensive, long-term study ever completed on this topic, so it holds more weight than other past studies which appeared to show no risk. And disturbingly, it may also open the door for further similar findings on other cancers in future studies.

The most thorough study yet on aspartame '' Over two million person-years For this study, researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. Apart from sheer size, what makes this study superior to other past studies is the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed. Every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Previous studies which found no link to cancer only ever assessed participants' aspartame intake at one point in time, which could be a major weakness affecting their accuracy.

One diet soda a day increases leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

AbstractBACKGROUND:In a previous study conducted at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation (CMCRC/ERF), we demonstrated for the first time that aspartame (APM) is a multipotent carcinogenic agent when various doses are administered with feed to Sprague-Dawley rats from 8 weeks of age throughout the life span.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this second study is to better quantify the carcinogenic risk of APM, beginning treatment during fetal life.

METHODS:We studied groups of 70-95 male and female Sprague-Dawley rats administered APM (2,000, 400, or 0 ppm) with feed from the 12th day of fetal life until natural death.

RESULTS:Our results show a) a significant dose-related increase of malignant tumor-bearing animals in males (p < 0.01), particularly in the group treated with 2,000 ppm APM (p < 0.01); b) a significant increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in males treated with 2,000 ppm (p < 0.05) and a significant dose-related increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in females (p < 0.01), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.01); and c) a significant dose-related increase in incidence of mammary cancer in females (p < 0.05), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM's multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when life-span exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.

RESULTS:When the 2 cohorts were combined, there was no significant association between soda intake and risks of NHL and multiple myeloma. However, in men, '¥1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of NHL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.72) and multiple myeloma (RR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.40) in comparison with in men without diet soda consumption. We observed no increased risks of NHL and multiple myeloma in women. We also observed an unexpected elevated risk of NHL (RR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.51) with a higher consumption of regular, sugar-sweetened soda in men but not in women. In contrast, when sexes were analyzed separately with limited power, neither regular nor diet soda increased risk of leukemia but were associated with increased leukemia risk when data for men and women were combined (RR for consumption of '¥1 serving diet soda/d when the 2 cohorts were pooled: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.02).

CONCLUSION:Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.

As few as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, according to new results from the longest-ever running study on aspartame as a carcinogen in humans. Importantly, this is the most comprehensive, long-term study ever completed on this topic, so it holds more weight than other past studies which appeared to show no risk. And disturbingly, it may also open the door for further similar findings on other cancers in future studies.The most thorough study yet on aspartame - Over two million person-years

For this study, researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. Apart from sheer size, what makes this study superior to other past studies is the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed. Every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Previous studies which found no link to cancer only ever assessed participants' aspartame intake at one point in time, which could be a major weakness affecting their accuracy.

One diet soda a day increases leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphomasThe combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

These results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Note that diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame (by far) in the U.S. Every year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total, of which about 86 percent (4,500 tons) is found in diet sodas.

SAN DIEGO -- Move over vampires, goblins and haunted houses, this kind of Halloween terror aims to shake up even the toughest warriors: An untold number of so-called zombies are coming to a counterterrorism summit attended by hundreds of Marines, Navy special ops, soldiers, police, firefighters and others to prepare them for their worst nightmares.

"This is a very real exercise, this is not some type of big costume party," said Brad Barker, president of Halo Corp, a security firm hosting the Oct. 31 training demonstration during the summit at a 44-acre Paradise Point Resort island on a San Diego bay. "Everything that will be simulated at this event has already happened, it just hasn't happened all at once on the same night. But the training is very real, it just happens to be the bad guys we're having a little fun with."

Hundreds of military, law enforcement and medical personnel will observe the Hollywood-style production of a zombie attack as part of their emergency response training.

In the scenario, a VIP and his personal detail are trapped in a village, surrounded by zombies when a bomb explodes. The VIP is wounded and his team must move through the town while dodging bullets and shooting back at the invading zombies. At one point, some members of the team are bit by zombies and must be taken to a field medical facility for decontamination and treatment.

"No one knows what the zombies will do in our scenario, but quite frankly no one knows what a terrorist will do," Barker said. "If a law enforcement officer sees a zombie and says, `Freeze, get your hands in the air!' What's the zombie going to do? He's going to moan at you. If someone on PCP or some other psychotic drug is told that, the truth is he's not going to react to you."

The keynote speaker beforehand will be a retired top spook '' former CIA Director Michael Hayden.

"No doubt when a zombie apocalypse occurs, it's going to be a federal incident, so we're making it happen," Barker said. Since word got out about the exercise, they've had calls from "every whack job in the world" about whether the U.S. government is really preparing for a zombie event.

Called "Zombie Apocalypse," the exercise follows the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's campaign launched last year that urged Americans to get ready for a zombie apocalypse, as part of a catchy, public health message about the importance of emergency preparedness.

The Homeland Security Department jumped on board last month, telling citizens if they're prepared for a zombie attack, they'll be ready for real-life disasters like a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake or terrorist attack. A few suggestions were similar to a few of the 33 rules for dealing with zombies popularized in the 2009 movie "Zombieland," which included "always carry a change of underwear" and "when in doubt, know your way out."

San Diego-based Halo Corp. founded by former military special ops and intelligence personnel has been hosting the annual counterterrorism summit since 2006.

The five-day Halo counterterrorism summit is an approved training event by the Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative, which provide funds to pay for the coursework on everything from the battleground tactics to combat wounds to cybersecurity. The summit has a $1,000 registration fee and runs Oct. 29-Nov 2.

Conferences attended by government officials have come under heightened scrutiny following an inspector general's report on waste and abuse at a lavish 2010 Las Vegas conference that led to the resignation of General Services Administrator Martha Johnson. The Las Vegas conference featured a clown, a mind-reader and a rap video by an employee who made fun of the spending.

Joe Newman, spokesman of the watchdog organization Project on Government Oversight, said he does not see the zombie exercise as frivolous.

"We obviously are concerned about any expenditure that might seem frivolous or a waste of money but if they tie things together, there is a lesson there," Newman said. "Obviously we're not expecting a zombie apocalypse in the near future, but the effects of what might happen in a zombie apocalypse are probably similar to the type of things that happen in natural disasters and manmade disasters. They're just having fun with it. We don't have any problems with it as a teaching point."

Defense analyst Loren Thompson agreed.

"The defining characteristics of zombies are that they're unpredictable and resilient. That may be a good way to prepare for what the Pentagon calls asymmetric warfare," Thompson said.

Organizers can also avoid the pitfalls of using a mock enemy who could be identified by nationality, race or culture '' something that could potentially be seen as offensive.

"I can think of a couple of countries where the local leaders are somewhat zombie-like," he joked. "But nobody is going to take this personally."

By JESSICA E. LESSINApple Inc. executive Scott Forstall was asked to leave the company after he refused to sign his name to a letter apologizing for shortcomings in Apple's new mapping service, according to people familiar with the matter.

The incident was the latest clash between Mr. Forstall, who oversaw Apple's mobile software unit, and other executives at the company. It led to one of the most significant management shake-ups in Apple's recent history and its most sweeping changes under Chief Executive Tim Cook.

Apple announced the departure of Mr. Forstall on Monday along with the unrelated departure of its new retail chief, John Browett. People familiar with the matter said Mr. Browett was also asked to leave.

ReutersScott Forstall, a 15-year Apple veteran and head of its mobile software unit, will be leaving the company.

Mr. Browett, who only recently was appointed head of the company's retail operations, failed to fit in at Apple and made some mistakes. They included the faulty implementation of a new staffing formula that cut some employee hours too severely.

Messrs. Forstall and Browett couldn't be reached to comment.

Mr. Forstall's departure came after mounting tension with members of Apple's executive ranks. For years, senior executives had complained that he wasn't cooperative and showed off his close relationship with Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs.

Without Mr. Jobs to mediate, tensions between Mr. Forstall and other executives built, according to the people familiar with the matter.

The 43-year-old Mr. Forstall recently told people that there is no "decider" now that Mr. Jobs is gone, according to a person briefed on the conversation.

Mr. Forstall also recently sent some members of Apple's iOS software team an email saying he felt the group wasn't working on enough big ideas in mobile software, according to a person briefed on the email.

The tension came to a head over maps. Mr. Forstall's team had been working to replace Google Maps on the iPhone for years. After Apple released its software to the public in September, users immediately complained about data inaccuracies and other bugs.

In deciding how to manage the crisis, Mr. Forstall argued that the company could address the outcry without apologizing, as Apple had done when it shipped iPhones with faulty antennas a few years ago, one of these people said. Mr. Cook and others disagreed, these people said. Mr. Cook signed his name to the apology instead.

Under Mr. Cook, who took over in August 2011, Apple's executive ranks had remained fairly stable. The company has rewarded its senior executives with lucrative, long-term pay packages.

Mr. Cook had been grooming some executives for their bigger jobs. In August, he promoted Craig Federighi, who oversaw Mac software engineering, to senior vice president. Apple said Monday that Mr. Federighi will take over responsibility for Mr. Forstall's mobile iOS software unit.

Mr. Forstall, a 15-year Apple veteran, was a prot(C)g(C) of Mr. Jobs, and his name was once bandied about as a possible successor. He rose quickly at the company and earned a reputation for risk taking. But he was also known as difficult to work with, and "never fit into the culture of Apple," said one person familiar with the matter.

Mr. Forstall has spent time in recent weeks working with his team to improve Apple Maps, which the company built to gain independence from a similar service run by Google Inc. Some people familiar with the matter said members of the team have acknowledged that in a rush to release the product, Apple postponed fixing too many known bugs and errors.

Mr. Browett joined Apple just five months ago in a role that was vacated by longtime retail head Ron Johnson. At the time, Mr. Cook hired him from U.K. big-box-electronics company Dixons Retail PLC and praised Mr. Browett's expertise in customer service.

But the transition was rocky from the start, compounded by the new staffing formula that cut some employee hours. Internal rumors of Mr. Browett's departure intensified in recent weeks as Apple canceled a major event for its retail leadership team in Arizona.

The company said a search for a new retail head is under way and that the group would report to Mr. Cook in the interim.

Senior Vice President Eddy Cue will take over Siri and Maps. Executives Jony Ive and Bob Mansfield will also expand their roles. The company said that the changes would help consolidate its online services.

Write to Jessica E. Lessin at jessica.lessin@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared October 30, 2012, on page B1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: An Apple Exit Over Maps.

In the shadow of Halloween, local health departments all across the country are holding creepy new drive-thru flu shot clinics this year as part of a nationwide ''emergency preparedness drill'' to see how quickly and efficiently large numbers of people can be vaccinated. According to numerous local reports, individuals are being encouraged to bring their family and friends along for the ride as they roll down their windows to get the free jabs, while officials monitor and track how rapidly the public can be processed through these various vaccine lines.

The ominous initiative, which some reports are openly describing as a test run for future forced vaccinations of large numbers of people, is taking place in Connecticut, Alabama, Georgia, California, Kansas, Virginia, Arizona, and many other states. And in some locations, administrators will actually be onsite timing with a stopwatch the rate at which vaccine providers are able to process people through the vaccine lines, all for the purpose of assessing whether or not such a feat might be possible on a much larger scale.

''We're going to time how long it takes each person to get through the clinic,'' said Kris Magnussen, a communicable disease prevention supervisor at Connecticut's Ledge Light Health District, to The Day. ''If we had to vaccinate thousands and thousands of people in a short period of time, we want to be as efficient as possible.''

In Georgia, a local health official took this chilling concept even further, telling WALB news in Albany that, should another ''pandemic'' flu situation sweep the area, ''we would need to give the vaccine to the entire population'' of that particular county. And since many other counties across the country are also holding their own similar flu shot clinics, the overall intent seems to be to utilize the vast network of local health departments to effectively vaccinate the entire U.S. population in the event of an ''emergency.''

Since flu vaccines take weeks to 'activate,' what good will it do to administer them in an emergency situation?

There is a glaring consistency with all this, though. Flu vaccines, we are told, take roughly two weeks after being injected to even begin working, which makes the idea of rushing thousands or even millions of people through a vaccine processing line to avert a flu pandemic or other emergency scientifically ridiculous. Nevertheless, this is the excuse the corporate plutocracy is using as justification for this latest flu shot stunt, which bears an eerie resemblance to the types of processing lines used by Nazi Germans to sort prisoners through the death camp lines.

Regardless of where this all ends up leading, it is always important to remember that the flu shot itself is medically useless, as illustrated by numerous studies, including a 2011 study published in the journal The Lancet which found that flu shots benefit virtually nobody. Taking vitamin D, eating ''superfoods,'' drinking clean water, and getting plenty of regular rest remain the best ways to avoid getting the flu '-- and the good news is that you do not have to wait in a long line of cars to gain access to these powerful natural remedies.

German brain researchers have successfully induced Tourette's syndrome symptoms in healthy people for the first time, using powerful magnetic pulses. They hope it could lead to a non-drug treatment.The scientists at the University of D¼sseldorf were researching the mechanism behind one of the symptoms of Tourette's, known as "echophenomena" - involuntarily repeating the words or movements of others.

They managed to induce this reaction in healthy human subjects by stimulating the supplementary motor area (SMA) of the brain, which controls movement. This could lead to non-drug therapy to reduce tics and repetitions in Tourette's patients.

Tourette's sufferers often carry out quick, involuntary movements - common tics include shrugging shoulders, nodding, or suddenly lifting their arms. They also often copy the movements of people they happen to be looking at.

Between 300,000 and 500,000 adults are said to have the syndrome in Germany, according to estimates from the German neurology society (DGN).

"The causes and mechanisms of this echoing have hardly been studied," the researchers wrote in the scientific journal Cortex. In particular, it had not been clear before whether the different types of tics - movement and noises - originated from the same part of the brain.

"We now know more about Tourette's and how it works," Jennifer Finis of D¼sseldorf University, one of the scientists behind the experiment, told The Local. "It's a good starting point."

At the moment, Tourette's is generally treated with neuroleptic medication. "But a lot of people don't like to take them, because they have a lot side-effects - they get very tired - and for some people they don't even work," said Finis.

The researchers carried out "repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation" (rTMS) on 30 healthy volunteers. This involved attaching a probe to their heads, sending out strong magnetic pulses. Depending on the length of the pulses, these either stimulated or suppressed activity in the SMA.

The researchers attempted to stimulate the reaction in 15 of the subjects, and suppress it in the other 15. Before and after each treatment, the subjects were shown videos of people carrying out spontaneous movements - such as raising an eyebrow, moving the mouth or the eyes.

The subjects whose brains had been stimulated by the rTMS imitated the movements three times as much as those whose SMA activity had been suppressed.

The scientists now want to test whether rTMS can be used to reduce tics and echophenomena in Tourette's sufferers. "So the logical consequence now would be to try the rTMS on the SMA on Tourette's patients to see if that works," said Finis.

But she stressed that scientists were unsure if successful rTMS treatment would cure the syndrome itself, or just its symptoms.

"It's very complicated with Tourette's," she said. "We do know now that the SMA is overactive in Tourette's patients, but we don't know why. We don't know if this is the cause or if it's just a consequence of something else which is wrong."

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.

Who needs Fox when you've got CBS doing double duty for them with interviews like this one with Sen. John McCain on Face the Nation? The Republicans have been foaming at the mouth since the embassy attack over a month and a half ago in Libya and now we can add McCain's name to the long list of Republicans who have compared "Benghazi-Gate" to Watergate or called for impeaching President Obama for how the matter has been handled.

I'm sure there are others I missed, but here's at least a partial list of those who have been making the same hyperbolic attacks:

Rush Limbaugh: RUSH: Benghazi cover-up "This dwarfs Watergate'

Ron Christie: Worse than Watergate??!! WTF

Sean Hannity and Donald Rumsfeld: Hannity Trots Out Donald Rumsfeld To Help Turn Benghazi Into Watergate

They've all got their talking points aligned perfectly, don't they? And last but not least, here's Grampy McCain from this Sunday: McCain: Libya either a "cover up" or "incompetence":

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argued this morning that Libya has made foreign policy a major part of the presidential campaign and that President Obama has shown "the worst kind of incompetence" on the issue.

"I don't know if it's either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence, which doesn't qualify the president as commander in chief," McCain said on "Face the Nation" today. He called the administration's handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a "debacle" that has "exposed the failures of the Obama foreign policy."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on the Libya issue.

McCain said the "worst" aspects of the Libya aftermath are the "gross, gross, outrageous statements" made by administration officials, including the president, in the days after the attack. He specifically referred to statements by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice made shortly after the attacks in which she blamed the violence on a "spontaneous" demonstration over an anti-Muslim American made film.

"We now know there was no demonstration. There was no mob," McCain said, referring to surveillance records he received from inside the consulate. "So for literally days and days, they told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever," McCain added.

McCain also compared Libya to Watergate saying, "Nobody died in Watergate. But this is either a massive cover-up or incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said. "The American people may take that into consideration a week from Tuesday."

"What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?" McCain asked rhetorically.

Who needs Fox when you've got CBS doing double duty for them with interviews like this one with Sen. John McCain on Face the Nation? The Republicans have been foaming at the mouth since the embassy attack over a month and a half ago in Libya and now we can add McCain's name to the long list of Republicans who have compared "Benghazi-Gate" to Watergate or called for impeaching President Obama for how the matter has been handled.

I'm sure there are others I missed, but here's at least a partial list of those who have been making the same hyperbolic attacks:

Rush Limbaugh: RUSH: Benghazi cover-up "This dwarfs Watergate'

Ron Christie: Worse than Watergate??!! WTF

Sean Hannity and Donald Rumsfeld: Hannity Trots Out Donald Rumsfeld To Help Turn Benghazi Into Watergate

They've all got their talking points aligned perfectly, don't they? And last but not least, here's Grampy McCain from this Sunday: McCain: Libya either a "cover up" or "incompetence":

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argued this morning that Libya has made foreign policy a major part of the presidential campaign and that President Obama has shown "the worst kind of incompetence" on the issue.

"I don't know if it's either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence, which doesn't qualify the president as commander in chief," McCain said on "Face the Nation" today. He called the administration's handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a "debacle" that has "exposed the failures of the Obama foreign policy."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on the Libya issue.

McCain said the "worst" aspects of the Libya aftermath are the "gross, gross, outrageous statements" made by administration officials, including the president, in the days after the attack. He specifically referred to statements by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice made shortly after the attacks in which she blamed the violence on a "spontaneous" demonstration over an anti-Muslim American made film.

"We now know there was no demonstration. There was no mob," McCain said, referring to surveillance records he received from inside the consulate. "So for literally days and days, they told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever," McCain added.

McCain also compared Libya to Watergate saying, "Nobody died in Watergate. But this is either a massive cover-up or incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said. "The American people may take that into consideration a week from Tuesday."

"What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?" McCain asked rhetorically.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke at a conference on cybersecurity.'She said she hoped the Senate would revisit legislation on the issue after the presidential election.'She also talked about Hurricane .. Read MoreHomeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke at a conference on cybersecurity.'She said she hoped the Senate would revisit legislation on the issue after the presidential election.'She also talked about Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts, saying the federal government is ''moving heaven and earth'' to help states restore power to affected areas.